Opposition to SB 7 added to Monday’s special city council meeting

The requested letter to be presented before the council falls in step with the League of California Cities and several of its member agencies.

Comment

By Jack Barnwelljbarnwell@ridgecrestca.com

Ridgecrest Daily Independent - Ridgecrest, CA

By Jack Barnwelljbarnwell@ridgecrestca.com

Posted Mar. 9, 2013 at 12:30 PM

By Jack Barnwelljbarnwell@ridgecrestca.com

Posted Mar. 9, 2013 at 12:30 PM

The requested letter to be presented before the council falls in step with the League of California Cities and several of its member agencies.

According to the staff report prepared by Interim City Manager Dennis Speer, the LCC’s opposition “rests on the fundamental principle of local control and the constitutional limits on state authority over charter cities.”

The LCC also contends the bill would establish a framework that would allow the state to micromanage local laws and polices by simply withholding funding considered the lifeblood for many local municipalities if they do not fall in line regarding prevailing wage issues.

“Such a condition is unlawful because the State is seeking to accomplish indirectly what it cannot achieve directly,” the staff report states.

While the proposed bill is aimed at charter cities, it has potential ramifications for general-law cities like Ridgecrest.

Local projects funded with local dollars like those provided by the Measure L sales tax can be utilized without adhering to prevailing wage rules.

Such projects are usually outsourced to contractors for a fraction of the cost it would using union or public employees.

City staff would recommend the council directly faxing a letter signed by Mayor Dan Clark to Sen. Steinberg voicing the city’s opposition to SB 7.

The letter itself adopts similar language to the staff report, stressing the city’s opposition to the piece of legislature.

“This measure would establish a disturbing framework for future state micromanaging of charter city laws and policies by the tactic of withholding state funds as political leverage to attempt to force changes to city charters and ordinances,” Clark’s letter states.

The letter cites the 2012 California Supreme Court ruling in the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, AFL-CIO v. City of Vista case as a potential precedent against Steinberg’s bill.

“This measure conflicts with Vista by attempting, via the Legislature, to leverage a different outcome than the Court’s ruling by withholding vital state construction funds, derived from all of the state’s taxpayers, from charter cities that fail to adopt prevailing wage requirements for projects built with local funds,” Clark’s letter states.